Jim, I saw them; they aren't outrageous, they're out in the garage!
Jim, I saw them; they aren't outrageous, they're out in the garage!
Originally Posted by Jim Galli
" . . . a couple of lenses . . ." ??????????
How about using an Aplanat Casket set on a Speed Graphic?
My sharpest lens, no contest at all, is a ca. 1905 270mm Aplanat. Nothing "modern" comes even close to that on-film resolution...
Again, I tout the quality of 100mm. f 3.5 Ektar that is on a Kodak Medalist and its brother, the 105mm. f 3.7 Ektar; many have favorably commented on longer Ektars, Commercial Ektars and Wide Angle Ektars; it may be that these lenses and certain older lenses produced images and resolution that were equal to the limit of the human eye to discern; we can count more line pairs per millimeter with a magnifying assist but can we really see the difference in the picture in the book or on the wall? Perhaps it is the subjective difference as between a Tessar & a Heliar and not the "sharpness bugaboo."
Bernie
Remember, I said not outrageous. The rest of that junk is wacked.
Outrageous? Not sure what this is supposed to infer.
I stopped using modern lenses (had a brand new Rodenstock APO 150 Sironar S and sold it) in favor of Wollensak Raptars and a 203 Ektar. The beat up old 135 Raptar that came with my Busch Pressman was just about to be thrown out, when I decided to shoot a couple negs just to see what it would do. The negatives exhibited a line and texture with this lens that was exactly the character I had been looking for. The Rodenstock images looked, how to say this, "normal and overly correct" in my estimation, and didn't thrill me.
After purchasing a 241 Raptar with the sale proceeds, I took the money I had left over from the sale and bought a 16x20 print washer AND a dry mount press.
It is completely a matter of taste whether you find those older lens designs artistically suitable to your style. They do give a look that newer lens designs have "corrected" I guess. I happen to like that uncorrected look.
http://scottedwards.us
I have, and use, a lot of lenses that the purists would consider outrageous. I only have one really "modern" lens, a 240 Sironar N. A lens considered worthless by many, a Zeiss Novar, is one of my favorites. I have several in various focal lengths. They get quite snappy when well stopped down. I have a number of oddball oldies that I've never used. One that might prove interesting is a tiny 135mm Leitmeyer Dialyt. Aplanats, Rapid Rectilinears, Kodak Anastigmats and other outrageous things abound around here.
Don't know if this is considered outrageous or not, but I use a 300 mm Metrogon on my 8x20. I bought a pristine example fromm ebay, made the mounting with waterhouse stops for the 6x6 lensboard. Very sharp when stopped down. Excellent uniformity of exposure when using the red or yellow filters with the center ND section.
The downside or what makes it outrageous? Why the weight of course. It's a real boat anchor.
John
BTW, if anyone wants one of these 300 mm f/6.3 Metrogon lenses I have one in good condition that I would be willing to sell for a good price. I bought the lens years ago from Surplus Shed with the intention of making a wide field telescope but never got around to it so it is just taking up space. The Metrogon is a modern version of the Topogon that was developed by Zeiss for aerial mapping and this particular version was designed to cover 9X18". It is reputed to give excellent contrast and sharpness, though I have never actually used it to make a negative.
Sandy King
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
It seems to me that using an ancient Darlot or similar that costs more than most modern lenses doesn't quite fulfill the intent Dan describes.
Some of the so-called junk lenses listed here do fulfill that intent.
Me? Outrageous? I'm the host of a forum devoted to Kiev and Pentacon Six cameras and lenses. If you make a good image with one of those pieces of Junque, then people are amazed. Turns out, they aren't that bad, and some of the lenses in that line are actually good by any standard.
I've always been attracted to the tessars, for a couple of reasons. One is that in the longer focal lengths, they have more than enough coverage for 4x5. Another is that they tend to be a bit slower, and thus smaller for a given focal length. An example is the 240mm/6.8 Caltar Type Y--a Rodenstock Ysarex or similar--that is happy in a #1 shutter instead of the #3 shutter needed by f/5.6 plasmats. The Ilex/Calumet 12"/6.3 is another example--it's happy in an Ilex No. 4 shutter instead of the No. 5 needed by f/5.6 lenses. Goodness knows the No. 4 is big enough.
On the other end of the size thing, the tessars also sometimes come in fast lenses. I have a Paragon 8-1/2" f/4.5 that is faster than any plasmat at that focal length and that makes it good for when I need selective focus. The tessar rendering of out-of-focus areas is a bit clumpy, but smoother than many plasmats and double-gauss normal lenses.
Mostly, though, the post-war tessar designs are usually quite good, coated, and mounted in competent shutters. And they are CHEAP. The image-quality-to-price ratio is about the highest of any lenses currently available. For example, any of the tessar designs are cheaper than, say, a Rodenstock Geronar triplet, and they are more useful at wider apertures, too.
Rick "who enjoys have a wide range of lens choices rather than snob appeal with just one or two" Denney
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks